Proposed residential development of 32 dwellings of which 13 will be affordable homes, ecological corridor, separate public open space and provision of access enhancements together with partial (almost total) demolition of former railway bridge.

The Committee approved the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation with additional conditions.

(Proposed residential development of 32 dwellings of which 13 will be affordable homes, ecological corridor, separate public open space and provision of access enhancements together with partial (almost total) demolition of former railway bridge.)

(Councillor Bolderson had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application, consideration of which had been deferred at the previous meeting, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Park, a local resident, had been registered to speak in objection.  However, as she had been unable to attend the meeting a statement she had submitted was read out on her behalf.   Mrs S Griffiths, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Stark, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The main issue was weighing the value attached to the retention of the railway arch against the benefits of the development. 

·        He had explored whether the arch could be retained as a feature of the development.  The expert advice contained in the report indicated no real support for retention of the arch and the report concluded that the proposal resulted in less than substantial harm to heritage assets.

·        The Fire Authority’s response set out at paragraph 5.5 of the report indicated that demolition of the arch was required to provide an acceptable access.  The risk to safety otherwise was unacceptable.

·        Whilst the expert view was that the arch did not have architectural and historic merit it was a landmark and did have a social value locally.   Most of the objections to the development related to the arch demonstrating the value attached to it.  However, this had to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme.

·        The development would provide 13 affordable houses. There would be a financial contribution from the developer.  The Charity owning the site, whose purpose was to provide affordable rental property, would receive funds which it could use in support of this aim to the Town’s wider benefit.

·        In relation to the developer contribution to Wye Valley NHS Trust he requested that this should be allocated to Ross-on-Wye, and in particular to support the Minor Injuries Unit.

·        The report’s conclusion was that the benefits of the development outweighed the social value associated with retention of the arch.  He sought the Committee’s view.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        A Member reported that he had received a comment from the Director of the Victorian Society (the statutory amenity body advising on matters of planning affecting heritage assets for the Victorian period) to which weight should be attached accordingly.  This stated that: “The Cawdor Arch is physical evidence of an important - but increasingly invisible - part of Ross-on-Wye's nineteenth century history.  It is also,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8